Sunday, June 08, 2008

Tax Attack

They defined Dion before the Liberals could and now the Tories have set out to define Dion's carbon tax before the Liberals can. Which is fair enough since Dion has yet to announce the specifics of his plan.

Yesterday, the Conservatives showed typical governing party maturity with this online story, which I can only assume was dreamed up by a few summer interns smoking some...uhh..."lettuce" (woah...dude...what if we turned Dion's head into a lettuce...cool):

In the story they quote Peter A. Nelson (yes, THE Peter A. Nelson), executive director of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association and self-proclaimed amateur economist. In it, Mr. Nelson predicts Dion's carbon tax will lead to $8 a head lettuce prices. Now, I noticed lettuce was $1.69 a head at Dominion on Saturday. Let's just say $2 to keep the numbers even. So, even if we forget about the portion of that cost that comes from growing the lettuce and store profits, transportation costs would have to quadruple in order for Nelson's prediction to come to pass. Of course, like I said - no details so I guess it's possible there's a $5.20 a litre gas tax in the plan, but I doubt it.

But, whatever - no need to dwell on the juvenille antics of the official Tory website. More important is the mainstream ad campaign, which has a lot more meat on it (no pun intended). The ads will be running on gas pumps which is just freakin' brilliant in my opinion, with gas prices soaring. The ads themselves are a bit tacky, but should be effective at getting across the message the Tories want to get across.

There will also be radio ads (the "Darren" one being the best), and the campaign got some bonus earned media from the left-wing anti-Conservative media today:

Also launched today was the viral campaign. Some of the site highlights include:

-Slamming (Mulroney's) "revenue neutral" GST.

-A "tax tag" game which is, truth be told, pretty funny. They even tossed Cherniak on, ensuring the site will get a few more links.

-"Do you think it's easy to load websites?" shows up on the screen as the site loads. I'll admit I laughed out loud at that one.

35 Comments:

I note that Mr. Nelson really likes predicting expensive lettuce. Last year, he claimed a new toll road would lead to $8 lettuce:

"we are headed for two things in Atlantic Canada, one being that it will soon cost $8.00 for a head of lettuce in Newfoundland and secondly that we will be able to buy any pair of shoes we want in the region as long as they are black oxfords!"

On one hand I find the campaign to be really offensive but the last one seemed to work "He's not a leader" with Canadians. At the same time I can't help but think that this is Dion's fault in that he floated the idea of a carbon tax without a plan on how to sell it to Canadians. His timing is horrible with this.

For years, the Liberals were able to define the Conservatives regardless of the policy (hidden agenda, not ready to govern, the people who brought you the GST, Mulroney's party, etc) and now the reverse is true.

"I wish that the conservatives would debate dion on the basis of real policies rather than make a personal attack."

Let me get this straight. Dion says he wants to bring in a carbon tax. The Tories release ads attacking a carbon tax and you write it off as a personal attack and then go on to wish the Tories would attack real policies.

Dan, with statements like these (mildly changing the context, of course, but certainly not beyond what is permitted in political realms today):

"there's a $5.20 a litre gas tax in the plan"

Well, it probably won't be long before the Globe and Mail will be quoting this line, citing an anonymous Liberal insider. And then of course the Conservatives will pick that up, and it will be announced as official Liberal policy by the Conservatives.

I really wish I could post all of this knowing it really could all be satire, but there are lurking doubts...

The other side of the blade that cuts both way, is that Harper has a blob of oil speaking his party line. Great way to differentiate himself from the oil companies, isn't it? And we all know how much Canadians love oil companies and their record profits.

“The Tories release ads attacking a carbon tax and you write it off as a personal attack and then go on to wish the Tories would attack real policies.”

Hmmm!

The attack article on the Conservative Party site features a lettuce on dion’s head. It quotes some silly fear-monger. $8 lettuce? Yeah Right!

And, it ends with the personal attack “Stéphane Dion. Not a Leader. Not worth the risk.”

For those of you who are policy challenged, these are policy issues that need to be addressed

1) How certain are we about the role of carbon in global warming?2) How quickly must we act?3) What will it cost us to prevent the disaster vs. what will it cost us to do nothing?4) What conditions must the carbon tax meet in order to be tax neutral?5) Who are the winners and losers with a carbon tax?6) What are the alternatives to a carbon tax?

In politics, it is useful to throw a few insults at your opponent. However, the inability to deliver a clear analysis to support your position is a sign of weakness.

There should be plenty of grounds to attack dion if it is true that carbon taxes will bankrupt the economy. Or, if his carbon tax represent a new form of tax and spend.

Instead, the harperites use the ridiculous to attack dion’ ability to lead. IMO, the New Government is bankrupt morally and intellectually. They do not treat Canadians with the respect that Canadians deserve.

This reminds me of Kim Campbell, and the final days of the Chretien/Martin regimes.

The Tories are so flush for cash that they will almost certainly spend the limit in the next election. I mean they managed to do the same in 2006, although they got less public financing than they will this time, and only had two years to do it.

Secondly, the timing of these things is never coincidental. "We didn't get it done, Stephane" was run in early 2007 when polls had Dion well ahead of the Tories. They worked - Dion's numbers collapsed, and there was no election.

As for these being personal attacks - they are tying a leader to policies, while attacking the policy. To the person suggesting this is "Kim Campbell-esque" I would say it is more Kinsella-esque - it reminds me of both the Ontario Liberal campaign in 2007 (and also the 2000 campaign where the Liberals moved fast to define Day as supporting two-tier healthcare... I just envisioned Dion holding a sign in the debates.. mmmm...).

Use a vague and unpopular policy commitment to define your opponent. An election about a carbon tax will, by the way, be a free trade election all over. The Green Party also supports a green tax shift, and while the NDP doesn't (I presume) they are also competing for the environmentalist vote.

Of course, Harper needs some policy as his alternative to a carbon tax - possibly a carbon market. It doesn't even have to be a particularly stringent carbon market.

The real question is why Dion went this route. Was it forced down his throat by Michael Ignatieff - wanting to hasten Dion's demise? As Warren Kinsella pointed out, we already have a carbon tax, it is called record high gas prices. If gas prices as they stand are not changing consumer behviour, it is hard to see what will.

The issue is not about attacking. This is war. You attack your opponent as well as advance your own agenda.

My point is that harper is bankrupt and needs to make personal attacks like Kim Campbell. Let me remind you that harper won election on the promise of a New Government. Today, harper’s support among Canadian is still one out of three (perhaps less?).

Why! He hasn’t delivered. The New Government is no different from the Reform Party. He has not been able to create a new national consensus. He has not been able like Mulroney to address the environmental issues and find a rational solution.

Harper’s politics is divide and conquer. He favors Quebec and Ontario turn against him. He favors the ADQ and Charest turns against him. He’s locked in a downward spiral of negativity.

Compare Obama with harper. Obama attacked clinton for being part of the establishment, i.e. part of the problem. He also has the potential to build coalitions of democrats, republicans and independents.

My best advice to the conservatives has been to find a leader who can build a majority. Yes, We Can!

jimtan, essentially the same analysis could be applied to Jean Chretien - except that Chretien benefited from vote splitting in Ontario and won elections.

Secondly, if you read Tom Flanagan and Gerry Nichol's pieces (which lots of people thought were sinister and such), you would see that Harper is trying to build a Conservative natural government.

Part of doing that is presenting the opposition as a bunch of out of touch losers. In the 90's we accepted that the Liberals were the natural party of government as much because the alternatives, while well-meaning, were so clearly not ready for prime time.

Kim Campbell, I suppose, tried to do the same thing. However the face ad was insubstantial - it implied, yes, Chretien is ugly, but it had no attendant values or policies that were being questioned. Indeed, the values that drove the ad were contrary to Canadian values of tolerance and accepting others.

Incidentally, the other great analogy to the campaign against the gas tax is Chretien's campaign against the GST. If you recall (I don't but I once played an online political game where I was a Tory PM in 1992, so I read up on that) a big (and idiotic) fuss was made about how it would "tax books and destroy education", while ignoring the fact that the GST was replacing the existing MST (which was a bloated irrational mess that harmed productivity).

People say Stephen Harper is Bush, or Kim Campbell or Hitler. They are dead wrong. Stephen Harper is Richard Nixon strategically (Nixon compromised many of his own values to build a Republican natural majority, but it worked and the GOP has won 7/10 elections since, while recapturing the senate and house - with a coalition that is only starting to fracture today, 40 years later), and Jean Chretien tactically (or really Warren Kinsella - who can't help but praise many elements of the Conservative campaign for being good pupils of his).

I think it should be obvious to everyone by now that this party has TOOO MUCH MONEY, or the spending limits for actual elections are too low, so they just waste it away in the middle of elections, coz I guess they have to use it for something. Why not a hilarious website?

I think it's all cutesy stuff, that gets a chuckle. It's very juvenile, but effective in getting people to talk about this issue.

Not sure how it will affect the Cons or the Libs, but Mr Dion has had a long time to articulate a position with regard to what his Carbon Tax is about. He didn't get the job done (sorry, couldn't resist... see how labeling works - you all know what that refers to). If he has a policy in place, then let's hear it! I've got a decent amount of internet and news/current event knowledge, and I don't see any details anywhere, other than what the Cons are saying about him. If you float a controversial policy like this, then be prepared to float some details as well, otherwise the other guys define your position for you.

You know the old saying, the more the Liberal party legitimizes this ad campaign (ie: the more people talk about the ads as if they are legitimately bothered by them) the more credibility the ads are given.

Is the party (Liberals) doing anything to get the word out, about what it stands for??????? I'm just an average Joe with no affiliation, but even I can see that poor, hapless Mr Dion has no staff surrounding him to set it all straight, and get him swimming downstream instead of trying to dog-paddle upstream. Can they really be that inept, or are they out to get him canned???

"For those of you who are policy challenged, these are policy issues that need to be addressed ..."

Umm, jimtan. The Conservatives have addressed those issues through the policy they've developed and defended. It's Dion who hasn't addressed these issues by putting forth a comprehensive policy. So, shouldn't your anger be directed at Dion and not the federal Conservatives? I mean, he's been given a golden opportunity to respond. The Tories have moved the carbon tax to the fore of the debate. Wouldn't now be the perfect time to release his policy and defend it while everyone is paying attention? Wouldn't that be necessary for a policy debate?

As I write this I may be affected by the very real prospect of flash flooding in my town, so there may be some induced irrationality...

However, I note that CTV just bought the Hockey Night in Canada song. If that increases CTV's take of hockey fans (eg. 90% of Canadians), and those people stay to watch the news, I figure that has to be worth at least 1-2 points for the Tories.

PS: I am not going to say whether the CBC has a liberal bias, or CTV a conservative one (they may both be biased), but it is fairly obvious the two have relative preferences (though thank god it isn't like Fox and MSNBC... I wish Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann would be shot out of a cannon).

"Canadian leaders" , now thats an oxymoron(with few exceptions, none from the west), eh; look at me, vote for me. How about this, "SHUT UP" I'm not interested in YOUR politics, stop wasting my money with YOUR ideas, cut all the government (*YOUR salaries and benefits first), give all taxpayers their money back. Stay out of individuals lives, quit trying to create the society YOU want and let Canadians create their own businesses and culture. Manage our government in an efficent and effective manner and our gov't relations for everyone not for YOUR over-inflated egos or ideology(a prescription for losers). Do the right thing "open transparent government", proper audits of services, cost benefit anaysis, citizen initiatives, citizen voting on all aspects of YOUR operations, and quit hidding behind privacy laws that were only written to protect YOU. Their is so much pork barrelling in this country between the bloated gov't spending, over compensated unions, regulated non-competitive gouging businesses, corporate welfare and the self serving tax free organizations (not all NGO'S): "rendered down" you could run every vehicle in this country for a century on the biofuel. LET THE PEOPLE decide whats important for themselves: like maybe putting YOU on a leash with a choker chain, like Sweden does its politians, so when YOUR gov'ts get out of control YOU can be jerked into line. Just an idea from a western Canadian iconoclast to left and right wing-nuts of the pork lovin provincial and federal political parties. Freedom, democracy and choice for all Canadians, just not for YOU.

The Tories have policies (multiple because Rona and John have had different policies) that have been attacked by every environment organization. Oh Yeah! They’ll get the job done by 2050.

Dion has had a hard-cap policy since March 2007. Baird responded with a cap on intensity! Baird said that he is doing well because both the greens and businesses are complaining.

Yes! The oil patch will be struggling to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Look at the price of oil. The oil producers will be devastated!

Now, dion adds a carbon tax.

“The Liberals have not yet announced the details of their environmental plan, but are considering a carbon tax that would not apply to the price of gasoline at the pumps, but to most other fuels that release carbon dioxide when they are burned, such as home heating fuel.”

The harperites attack him with $8 lettuce heads. They don’t try to explain why carbon taxes are unnecessary, or unwise. Oh dear! Will they have to quote the Fraser Institute?

The New Government has been at the forefront of every international climate-warming conference opposing the consensus positions. And, getting heckled. Therefore, they must already have a clear position about why carbon (usage) taxes are bad! They must share it with all Canadians.

Here’s a quote from the wikipedia article ‘Global warming controversy’

“In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate."

As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.[55] For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science.[56] One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.[57]

In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.[58][59]”

Indeed, the Tories have moved the carbon tax and lettuce heads to the fore of the debate.

I would suggest you Google "Oregon Institute Of Science And Medicine"....they have submitted a petition to the US Govt signed by over 31,000 bonifide scientists proclaiming that man made carbon dioxide does NOT contribute to so called global warming. Soon the big carbon scam will be hitting the fan and be exposed as the fraud of the century.

Other air and water pollutants should be getting all the attention...such as the City Of Victoria dumping raw sewage directly into the Pacific Ocean. I am amazed we don`t hear from Susuki about this, i wonder why?

"The New Government has been at the forefront of every international climate-warming conference opposing the consensus positions. And, getting heckled."

LOL. Way to contribute to the policy debate by throwing out completely misleading political theatre. Since you brought it up: What do you have against the Tories arguing that China and India should have to reduce their emissions as well? Is that not in the best interest of the environment? You know, the actual policy they were proposing.

Sure they do, the price of everything will go up. And that is going to hurt consumers. The Liberals could counter with the positives of the plan (or do you expect the Conservatives to do that for them?), but instead Dion decides to say Stephen Harper is lying about his carbon tax (quite ironic, since Dion has also lied about Dion's carbon tax, but I digress).

I don't really see how you can say the Conservatives are attacking Dion instead of the policy. They've clearly attacked the policy and your people have done nothing to defend it. If anybody is killing the policy debate on this subject, it's Dion.

As for carbon taxes being unwise, I'll give you one reason why they are. It is essentially a giant tax cut for banks (which I don't really have a problem with but the left-leaning Liberal base might) and a giant tax increase on manufacturing. As Dalton McGuinty so eloquently told Flaherty, corporate tax cuts are useless for the manufacturing sector since they aren't making profits. This is also an industry that is extremely price-sensitive which may not be able to pass the costs on to consumers due to cheap imports. Increase the costs enough and ... well ... I think you can figure out what happens. So can those employed in the industry.

"Yes! The oil patch will be struggling to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Look at the price of oil. The oil producers will be devastated!"

More irrational policy debate. The oil patch is not the reason we do not have a federal climate change policy, the reason is Ontario. At the end of the day, people will need to buy Alberta's oil, they don't need to buy Ontario's manufactured goods. It's the reason why that out of the big four provinces (ON, PQ, AB, BC) Ontario is the only one without any carbon pricing mechanism. Not even a token one.

You can wrap up a carbon tax in all the anti-Alberta rhetoric you want (how this contributes to the policy debate you desire is unclear), it doesn't change the fact that the big loser is more likely than not going to be Ontario's manufacturing sector.

“I would suggest you Google "Oregon Institute Of Science And Medicine"....they have submitted a petition to the US Govt signed by over 31,000 bonifide scientists proclaiming that man made carbon dioxide does NOT contribute to so called global warming.”

HeHeHe!

You didn’t read the wikipedia article I provided.

The "Oregon Petition," was started in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science. The identical petition card was circulated again in early 2008 and Arthur Robinson is presenting the petition with 31,000 signatures in Washington DC on May 19, 2008[51] Critics point out that many of the signatories of the Petition lack a background in climatology[52][53] and that the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. The petition's website claims that all of the 17,100 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."[54]

In addition, Todd Shelly provide this critique of the 1998 petition:

The infamous Oregon petition hardly merits mention. The senior author of the paper accompanying the petition was Dr. Arthur Robinson, a biochemist, not a climate scientist. The second and third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. According to Hayashi, Baliunas and Soon are "legitimate scientists." What Hayashi fails to mention is that both of these individuals have been "senior scientists" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing think tank, and have been affiliated with other advocacy groups (e.g., Heritage Foundation, Fraser Institute) funded, in part, by the oil industry (particularly ExxonMobil). So, Baliunas and Moon may have science training and may be affiliated with an academic institution, but to the extent that politics and money influence their interpretation of climate data, they are not objective in their interpretations (Hayashi refers to them as "upstanding professionals") but are mouthpieces for the oil companies.

But, back to the paper accompanying the petition. The fourth, and final, author was Robinson’s son, Zachary, who had no academic training in climate science or (to my knowledge) any advanced degree in any scientific field. Oh, yes, and the paper written by this team was sent out in petition mailings without any peer-review or without acceptance in any scientific journal. In short, it was an opinion piece that had no demonstrated scientific value.

Also, of interest, Scientific American recently contacted a small number of petition signers, who claimed to have a PhD in a climate-related science. About 25 percent (6/26) said they would not sign the petition today. If nothing else, this finding suggests that the petition (circulated in 1998) is outdated, made obsolete by new research and new data. Interestingly, three of the 26 individuals contacted did not even remember the petition! Assuming senility was not involved, this result suggests that a large number of original signers were not even aware of what it was they were signing

Finally, this is a link to ourcewatch.org with a detailed write-up of the Oregon Institute

Canadians who hold shares in oil companies (an oil company is the sum of its shareholders, not some independent "evil" entity) love the profits, which probably includes you, your mom and her bridge friends, if they have a pension or own RRSP's,

Do you think oil companies are "evil" because you read that from Paul Wells or some other journalist with a reflexively naive "progressive" worldview, or did you get that from the "humanities" in university?

Here’s the difference between us. I would never condemn every conservative. I treat people as individuals.I would never descend to insults that are unfair or obtuse. They do not add to the collective wisdom.